Notre Dame files Lawsuit against Kathleen Sebelius, DHSS & Timothy Geithner, US Treasury, Dept. Labo

Originally posted by dawnstar
Notre Dame doesn't need a waiver to get out of a law that everyone else is supposed to be abiding to....
and the religious right needs to stop trying to force women to have babies!!!

That's a hoot! Obviously you don't understand 'the law' or religious freedom in this country.

1 - The LAW supports Notre Dame. The US Constitution, First Amendment right.
2 - The 'relgiious right' isn't forcing women to have babies. that's absurd.
3 - Birth control and abortions are available all over the place. Anyone can walk into just about any gas station and/or pharmacy and pick up a condom for a buck. Or go to planned parenthood and get them free.

The rest of the post was emotional stuff didn't contain anything worth responding to.

reply to post by FlyersFan


it's not the women's responsibility to slap a condom on, is it? it's the man's...
again, if it violates notre dame's rights..then it violates the individual's rights!!
so, if I need a blood transfusion and one of my coworkers happens to be johovah witness, then it is violating his rights for our company's insurance to cover it?? or if my boss happens to be johovah witenss, then it's violating his rights if he can't find an insurance company that will offer a policy for his employees that doesn't cover blood transfusions??

I have a serious problem with some of the treatment in the mental health industry, I believe it is turning our kids into homocidal manciacs that will attack you and eat the face off of ya while you are screaming for help and cops are putting bullets into his body!!! well, maybe the face eating thing is just a zombie attack, but alot of those mass murders in the schools have been done by kids who were on the mental health drugs...
I don't believe we should be handing them out like we are. I don't want to aide in developement of so much heartache, so, well, guess they should come up with some kind of insurance policy that eliminates them from coverage also???

follow this to the extreme, and there is no reason for the insurance!! since we all can find "beliefs" that will eliminate all those conditions that we think we will never have, or won't have till later in life, and well, the risks won't be shared, and the whole thing will go down the drain real fast!!

and well, since muslims have a problem with pork, along with a whole bunch of other things, maybe we should just remove the pork from the store shelves (to avoid anyone from being forced to go against the religious beliefs and touch it), and give up on our seeing eye dogs, wear burkas, and on and on....

the mandate is unconstitutional....
and as a result, more and more unconstituational acts will follow behind it...
just because there is a major mainstream religion present in some cases shouldn't protect those few from the unconstitutionality of the law! since the constitution was seeking to protect even the not so major, not so mainstream religions from being exterinated from those big mainstream religions!

oh, and planned parenthood is under assault by the christian right also, and is funded partially by taxpayer's money...so, well, you still have those who belief something is wrong having to support it!! no difference whatsoever!!
you are trying to take people out of the responsible position of taking care of their own healthcare needs via insurance, and casting them into the lot of the "irresponsible" who are draining you of your hard earned money!

Originally posted by buster2010

And The Sword is right if religions want to be involved in politics then they should lose their tax free status.

Lets just turn your quote around a Tad, shall we?

If the (people in politics) want to be involved in Religion, they should lose their Political Power.

reply to post by Tw0Sides


seems like both groups want to cross the line.....
so are you saying the one should be able to, but not the other way around??

the separation of church and state benefits the churches. since the gov't meddling in the area would probably lead to a consolidation of the beliefs into one set doctrine eventually, and most likely that set doctrine would then be set in stone, while not being correct in many areas. it gives the religions room to grow and develope.
it's a shame the the religions can't seem to see that...

or to see just how far a part some of those doctrines are from each other from domination to domination.

while you have the catholic church wanting to curtail the use of birth control, claiming it 's wrong to have sex without a genuine interest in procreation, you have a baptist minister encouraging his faithful to have lots of sex, it's good for your marriage...

and of course all of them proclaiming the wife just sit by and allow the husband to make all the calls, and well, just accept whatever the man chooses...

men don't risk their lives having babies...
men aren't the ones expected to devout the majority of their time for the 18-20 years raising those babies...
and men aren't the ones left in proverty usually if a marriage ends up with a divorce, heck many of them still get to skip away without much of a child support payment even!

so, yes, men can go into any store and buy a condom cheaply.....and, if he chooses to put it on!!!
women still need pills, or different devices placed in her body, ect, which cost a tad bit more, and pose more risk to her body. and in any and all cases, there is no birth control that is 100% effective, but the pill is more effective than condoms are. are sometimes used for issues not related to procreaton, are sometimes necessary if a person has to be on some medications to prevent reproduction in an environment that would lead to extreme deformity, disabliltiy, ect. and sometimes needed to prevent the death of the mother!!!

I don't see where a person's religion should be allowed to endanger the life and well being of another.
and when you are talking about insurance, gov't mandated insurance at that, well, you are talking about a wide range of people, with different beliefs, different needs pooling their money together with the understanding that whoever has whatever need well, money will be taken from that pool...
why should someone have to put money into the pool to pay for some procedure that isn't really a life and death issue with you, ain't gonna compromise you ability to work, ain't gonna affect your life for decades to come, and just might be there just to make your life more enjoyable (like viagra), if they know that if something come up with them, you won't repay the kindness back to them because it deals with the female reproductive system and her unwillingness or inability to bring a child into the world?

ya, I know, she could quit having sex....
but ya know, you could also quit eating all that spicey food a hour before bedtime and your acid reflux would probably just fade out of existance also!

Originally posted by dawnstar
it's not the women's responsibility to slap a condom on, is it? it's the man's...

Um .. no. In a world with AIDS and HIV and other nasty diseases, that kind of thinking will get you killed. If you are going to play around, it's YOUR responsibility to make sure thre is a condom being used.

if I need a blood transfusion and one of my coworkers happens to be johovah witness, then it is violating his rights for our company's insurance to cover it??

You really are out in left field on this ...

If it is against the Jehovah Witness religion to not only engage in blood transfusions, but also to help provide blood transfusions, then it is the right of a Jehovah Witness outreach NOT to provide support for people to get blood transfusions. It is the right of a Jehovah Witness privately owned business not to provide for blood transfusions if it is their religion not to provide it for others. BUT .. does the Jehovah Witness religion forbid them from helping others to obtain blood transfusions? They can't have it for themselves, but what about helping others obtain it? Do you even know?

Catholics are not allowed to help others engage in artificial birth control or abortion.
It's their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.
And you have no right to force them to do something against their faith.

It's got nothing to do with co-workers, blah blah blah etc etc ...

A jewish owned deli has the right not to have bacon on their menu.

A privately owned - muslim owned cabbie - has a right to not allow people in his cab if they have wine bottles.

The Constitution supports this. Deal with it.

Originally posted by dawnstar
while you have the catholic church wanting to curtail the use of birth control,

Dead wrong. You obviously haven't read any of the information that has been provided on this subject. The Catholic Church is in no way 'curtailing the use of birth control' for people who work in their outreaches (Catholic Church hospitals .. Catholic Church schools .. etc). They are saying they can't pay for it. There is no blocking of people from going and getting their birth control or abortions elsewhere.

and of course all of them proclaiming the wife just sit by and allow the husband to make all the calls, and well, just accept whatever the man chooses...

That's reeeeeally far out there.

so, yes, men can go into any store and buy a condom cheaply.....and, if he chooses to put it on!!!

And the woman can chose if she wants to have sex with him or not. If she chooses to play around without a condom present, then it's her own damn fault if she gets pregnant or catches a deadly disease. She'll get the Darwin Award.

I don't see where a person's religion should be allowed to endanger the life and well being of another.

Catholics exercising their First Amendment Constitutional right, in no way endangers the life of anyone. That's absurd. Birth control is available everywhere and at a very reasonable cost .. and planned parenthood hands out condoms like candy.

I don't see where a person's hate'n on Americans of faith should be allowed to take away the constitutional rights of those Americans of faith. (backatchya) Your hate of faith and the Constitutional rights of Americans to practice that faith have been noted.

The problem with this government edict is that it is an extremely slippery slope. To reiterate what FlyerFan has put so well, the Catholic Church is NOT telling people that they cannot receive birth control, only that they refuse to pay for something that they BELIEVE is wrong.
The slippery slope is getting steeper, day by day. The government wants to tell people what they can and can't eat, whether they can grow vegetables and sell them, what they can and can't say, and soon, what they can say on the internet, or even what internet sites will be "allowed" to be accessed. They want to tell you what fuel you can use and fine or tax you if you chose a fuel that they are not pushing. In addition, they have decided who to bail out(certainly not the average citizen), and what corporations they will give YOUR tax dollars to(e.g. Solyndra- look how well that went!).
I could go on and on.
As Rev. Nielmoller said, "they came for others and I said nothing, then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak up"(short version).
Today, it's institutions that oppose birth control and abortion(not just Catholic institutions, I might add), tomorrow it may well be YOU. In fact, if they get away with this, tomorrow it WILL be YOU.

Peace.

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

hey, I don't believe in the healthcare system as it is now, I shouldn't be taxed for any of it and shouldn't be required to buy any insurance...

but since I don't have a major religion backing up my beliefs, I can sit back and tolerate it!!!

Again you go off on a tangent for no reason. This is the only thing you said worth reading. You should not be FORCED to buy insurance. Why say any more after that.

Are you FORCED to buy a car?

If you wish to not have any insurance you should not be allowed to receive any medical care without paying out of pocket. I think that would be fine.

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by Tw0Sides

 

ya, I know, she could quit having sex....
but ya know, you could also quit eating all that spicey food a hour before bedtime and your acid reflux would probably just fade out of existance also!

So are you saying I should be buying medicine for your acid reflux because you are so without self control you are unable to make a single healthy decision for yourself?

If that is indeed the case perhaps you should have a man making decisions for you?

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


stop worrying, ain't none of your money going for my healthcare!! and the last thing that I had to visit the doctor for was a hernia, that I probably got at work.....it was taken care of over a year ago....

but, I'm sorry if this upsets you, but money from your taxes is probably being used to treat someone's acid reflux....sorry!!!

especially since it was probably previous medication that caused the acid reflux!!!



either I am missing something, or others are on this...

obama isn't telling the religious institutions that they have to give their employees birth control....
he is telling them that they have to provide insurance coverage that meets a set of minimum qualifications. one of those is to cover birth control 100%. he's telling the insurers that they are to cover birth control 100%!!

the only way they are telling the religious institutions that is if they are acting as insurers themselves!!

up till this point, it was the states that would have the responsibility of determining what would be an acceptable insurance policy, what wouldn't... but there's been a lot of toe stepping between the states and fed gov'ts of late and this is just one.
if we were talking about the real estate markets, well, it seems that those who are griping about that wants the fed to step on the states toes on that one.

the end of this game, unless, the supreme court steps up and does their job properly, is gonna be that those minimum standards is gonna be the standards that you will more than likely find in the insurance policy that you will be presented at work, or any gov't subsidized policy that you may find yourselves having to take advantage of which. only those with much higher incomes, or those with really great jobs will be able to afford the a better policy than this basic policy! and like it or not, you are gonna have to be insured!

like I've said many times, if an argument is true for an institution, then it is also true for the individuals! so, the idea that birth control, on the whole could be wiped out of the coverage isn't beyond belief like many of yous seem to think! since if the law stands, we are all gonna have to be insured somewhere, and that policy will include birth control being covered, 100%!! and the gov't is gonna be subsidizing alot of it, so, there is no way that an individual can prevent some of their money into going into someone's birth control pill!!

so, yes, I am concluding now that some of yas would rather birth control not be covered!! since that is what the end result would be!

now, for flyer's fan....

I've been married to the same man for over 30 years, he's been true to me, I've been true to him!!! so, what chance is there that we will get any sexually transmitted disease???? don't treat me like a whore that is hopping from man to man just because I speak up in support of birth control! married couples, use them also, as I am sure you well know!
it just gives you a stronger argument if you portray the women using birth control as a bunch of loose women just having a ton of fun without any consequences!

the fact is, I have no need for the birth control, I am past the age of child bearing!
but, I know of many instances where people were relying on that birth control, including some personal experiences, to prevent real problems, some life threatening, some not so life threatening but still pretty much disasterous that would have occurred if they had! much, much more so than the results would be if some didn't get some of those treatments that would be still COVERED BY INSURANCE!!

Originally posted by dawnstar
either I am missing something, or others are on this...

You are ... let's try again to explain it to you ...

obama isn't telling the religious institutions that they have to give their employees birth control.... he is telling them that they have to provide insurance coverage that meets a set of minimum qualifications. one of those is to cover birth control 100%. he's telling the insurers that they are to cover birth control 100%!!

- The Catholic faith says that Catholics can not help others to participate in artificial birth control or abortion. By forcing the Catholic Church to pay for insurance that 100% covers birth control (which you admit it does), then that Catholic Church is indeed helping others to use artificial birth control.

- The Catholic faith says that, for Catholics to do this, they are in a state of mortal sin. That means ... they go to hell.

It doesn't matter that you and I disagree with what the Catholic Church believes on this matter. What matters is that the government is overstepping and is taking away the Constitutional right of Catholics to practice their faith .. and that practicing of faith includes the fact that they can not help others to engage in artificial birth control or abortion - which is what the Obama administration is trying to get them to do.

Originally posted by dawnstar
don't treat me like a whore

I didn't.

the fact is, I have no need for the birth control, I am past the age of child bearing!

As am I. Actually, it was a hysterectomy at age 41 .. but that's another story.

I know of many instances where people were relying on that birth control,

Then they shouldn't work for the Catholic Church.
They have a constitutional right to their faith - if we agree with their faith or not.
It's just that simple.

reply to post by FlyersFan


nope, I'm not......

would it matter if it was just 10% of the cost, or 50%, any coverage whatsoever, would be helping get birth control....

ain't missing the fact that the catholic church don't like birth control either....or that they feel it's a mortal sin....

do you agree with the idea that if the catholic church institutions should be exempted from this, then the members of that church should also be exempted from the mandate to participate in such insurance programs?? under the same reasoning?? I mean, by participating, they are helping others get birth control, are they not? they are agreeing that some of the money they are putting into the pool may be used to provide it for another aren't they??

so....I guess, in order to protect the catholics, and others, well, we should just drop the coverage for any and all birth control from the minimum requirements for health insurance, am I right??

the problem is, I know for a fact that the cost of the insurance has gone up since this stupid law has been passed and will probably continue to do so! and the earning power of the average american has dropped like a rock! more than likely, many of us here will end up on the gov't program....

therefore, I feel that the catholic church should justify this one thing......

why should a woman, a wife, a mother caring for little ones have to pay out of pocket for a drug that would be considered lifesaving.....birth control if the doctor has told her that giving birth to another child would more than likely kill her... have to pay into a policy that will pay for every need for everything else, but leave her out in the cold in the one area that if life threatening to her??

for some reason, I don't think "religious belief" is gonna satisfy such a women!!

Originally posted by dawnstar
would it matter if it was just 10% of the cost, or 50%, ...

Helping is helping ... ANY percentage is against their faith.

ain't missing the fact that the catholic church don't like birth control either....or that they feel it's a mortal sin....

Apparently you are.

do you agree with the idea that if the catholic church institutions should be exempted from this, then the members of that church should also be exempted from the mandate to participate in such insurance programs??

ALL AMERICANS should be exempted from the mandate to buy health insurance.
Forcing Americans to buy a product is wrong. It's unconstitutional. Period.

so....I guess, in order to protect the catholics, and others, well, we should just drop the coverage for any and all birth control from the minimum requirements for health insurance, am I right??

Where on earth do you get that from? Your 'logic' is really not connecting ...

why should a woman, a wife, a mother caring for little ones have to pay out of pocket for a drug that would be considered lifesaving

Why should an entire faith- group of Americans go against that faith and damn themselves to hellfire (their belief) all because some stupid woman chose to work for their church instead of work for someone else? If a woman wants free condoms and free birth control pills so badly, then they should just not work for a Catholic Church outreach. The Constitution doesn't promise free condoms. It promises freedom of religion.

for some reason, I don't think "religious belief" is gonna satisfy such a women!!

That's her problem. If she's stupid enough to go work for a Catholic Church outreach and expect them to go against their faith and make it possible for her to have free condoms, then I would hope that she doesn't figure out how to breed.

The Constitution is the Constitution.
Freedom of religion - not free condoms - are promised.
It's just that simple.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus

Agreed. I am not much on religion either, but this is a Constitutional issue, not a religious issue. The government overstepped it's bound with this, and not they need to pay the piper.

Another potential negative effect of the government mandate is the real probability that Catholic Institutions may shut down, rather than give in to coercion to break the beliefs of their faith.

Obama Risks $100 Billion If Catholic Hospitals Close
Bishops May Close Facilities Rather than Bend to Contraception Dictate

The Catholic Church has perhaps the most extensive private health-care delivery system in the nation. It operates 12.6 percent of hospitals in the U.S., according to the Catholic Health Association of the U.S., accounting for 15.6 percent of all admissions and 14.5 percent of all hospital expenses, a total for Catholic hospitals in 2010 of $98.6 billion. Whom do these hospitals serve? Catholic hospitals handle more than their share of Medicare (16.6 percent) and Medicaid (13.65) discharges, meaning that more than one in six seniors and disabled patients get attention from these hospitals, and more than one in every eight low-income patients as well. Almost a third (32 percent) of these hospitals are located in rural areas, where patients usually have few other options for care.

Compared to their competition, Catholic hospitals take a leading role in providing less-profitable services to patients. They lead the sector in breast cancer screenings, nutrition programs, trauma, geriatric services, and social work. In most of these areas, other non-profits come close, but hospitals run by state and local governments fall significantly off the pace. Where patients have trouble paying for care, Catholic hospitals cover more of the costs. For instance, Catholic Health Services in Florida provides free care to families below 200 percent of federal poverty line, accepting Medicaid reimbursements as payment in full, and caps costs at 20 percent of household income for families that fall between 200 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty line.

Imagine the impact if these hospitals shut down, discounting the other 400-plus health centers and 1,500 specialized homes that the Catholic Church operates as part of its mission that would also disappear. Thanks to the economic models of these hospitals, no one will rush to buy them. One in six patients in the current system would have to vie for service in the remaining system, which would have to absorb almost $100 billion in costs each year to treat them. Over 120,000 beds would disappear from an already-stressed system.

The poor and working class families that get assistance from Catholic benefactors would end up having to pay more for their care than they do under the current system. Rural patients would have to travel farther for medical care, and services like social work and breast-cancer screenings would fall to the less-efficient government-run institutions. That would not only impact the poor and working class patients, but would create much longer wait times for everyone else in the system. Finally, over a half-million people employed by Catholic hospitals now would lose their jobs almost overnight, which would have a big impact on the economy as well as on health care.

www.thefiscaltimes.com...$100-Billion-if-Catholic-Hospitals-Close.aspx#page1
In addition, there is this in the same link:

Richard Land, who leads the largest Southern Baptist organization in the U.S., proclaimed solidarity with Catholics and pledged to go to jail before submitting to the HHS mandate.

It is not only Catholics that are being targeted.

does this boil down to insurance premiums ?

I mean even the folks at ND would admit they can't keep the kids from being sexually active, or purhasing birth control.

so this is about who pays for it ?

because they will pay 100 times more in lawyer fees than they ever will in premiums on this

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
The problem with this government edict is that it is an extremely slippery slope. To reiterate what FlyerFan has put so well, the Catholic Church is NOT telling people that they cannot receive birth control, only that they refuse to pay for something that they BELIEVE is wrong.

I believe it is wrong to cover viagra. I mean it's gods will for you to be that way
I believe it is wrong to cover prescriptions for things like depression. god made you that way
I believe it is wrong to cover fertility treatments. it's gods will for you to not have kids

ok, I actually don't believe in these things, but I don't think the church has much of a case here on belief

reply to post by FlyersFan


why do you keep insisting that this is gonna only be contained within the catholic organizations???

if the catholic organization is waived, then every business that is owned be those who believe in like manner should also be waived, and probably every corporation, since more than likely there are stockholders who also believe this way.....

and then there is the individuals who are being forced into buying the insurance, who should also be waived.....

so it comes down to either the birth control goes, or obamacare goes!!!

either that or we get another batch of crap laws filled with inconsistancies!

Originally posted by dawnstar
why do you keep insisting that this is gonna only be contained within the catholic organizations???

I never said any such thing. But I will now ...

if the catholic organization is waived, then every business that is owned be those who believe in like manner should also be waived,

So? If someone owns a business, they have a right to run it in a manner that fits with their religious freedoms. Like I said - A jewish deli owner shouldn't be forced to sell bacon; a Muslim cabbie who owns his own cab or cab company shouldn't have to transport people who carry wine bottles (this actually came up in Minnesota or someplace like that). IT IS THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

then there is the individuals who are being forced into buying the insurance, who should also be waived.....

As I said ... EVERYONE should be waived. No one should be forced into buying insurance.
It's unconstitutional to force people to buy a product.

so it comes down to either the birth control goes, or obamacare goes!!!

Obama care is unconstitutional and it should be gone. However, even if it stayed, it would not mean the end of birth control. That's aburd. It's available nearly everywhere for anyone who wants it and at very reasonable prices.
Condom companies, big pharma, gas stations, planned parenthood, protestant hospitals and clinics, Jewish hospitals and clinics, town hospitals and clinics, insurance companies .... none of those are 'Catholic'.

I think you are just looking for a problem where there is none.